Share this story

Before October 23 rolled around, there were rumors Apple might release a slightly revised iPad 3 around the same time as the iPad mini, likely adopting Apple's new Lightning connector. But the company actually had a bigger surprise in store, stuffing a faster A6X processor inside and calling it a "fourth-generation" iPad.

The move was uncharacteristic for Apple. By tradition, the company has never revved its mobile products more than once per year. The first three iPads were released about a year apart, all in the March/April timeframe. So why did Apple change up the iPad after just seven months?

We've heard a few theories, and have a few of our own. We thought it would be worthwhile to look at them and consider how much any lone reason may have influenced Apple.

Lightning compatibility

Adding compatibility with the new Lightning connector standard (as in, standard for Apple's mobile devices) was a no-brainer. Someone who owned an older iPad but recently bought a brand-new iPhone 5 suddenly found themselves swapping cables, or trying to carry multiple cables and chargers when traveling.

I solved this problem for my relatively technophobic girlfriend by buying a dual 10W charger, and hooking up one Dock connector cable and one Lightning connector cable.

But wouldn't it be nice if all your Apple devices used the same connector? Sure it would. That's the widely cited reason Apple was rumored to begin offering an updated iPad 3 around the launch of the iPad mini. After all, the holidays are around the corner, and iPads will show up in more than a few stockings.

How much did this weigh on Apple executives' thought processes when planning the iPad 4? We think it's plausible Apple could have offered this as the only change and gotten a few buyers. But the assembly line would have to be modified to make new aluminum shells and attach the new connector. And think of the headache of trying to handle the customer confusion when someone thought they were getting a 30-pin Dock-compatible device and got the Lightning-compatible one instead. We suspect Apple wanted a more substantial update too if it was time to handle a simple connector swap.

Performance improvement

Since the iPad 3 offered seemingly identical performance to the lower-resolution iPad 2, the lack of any tangible performance improvement was often seen as a sore spot for the otherwise nice generational upgrade of the iPad 3.

The A6X processor in the iPad 4 is significantly faster than the A5X in the iPad 3, offering double the number-crunching and graphics performance. Since a speed boost is what many iPad buyers claimed to have missed with the iPad 3, we suspect improving performance sooner rather than later might have been high on Apple's reasons to update.

Besides, Apple already did the heavy lifting in designing the A6X's ARMv7s-based "Swift" core for the iPhone 5's A6. Adding another 32nm processor variant to Samsung's chip fabs was probably no big deal.

LTE compatibility

LTE has sort of been its own "bag of hurt" for Apple. As LTE compatibility began becoming standard on most high-profile Android handsets over the last two years, Apple's devices chugged along on 3G speeds. Apple repeatedly noted the high power drain from existing LTE chipsets made including compatibility a "design compromise" Apple wasn't willing to make.

However, baseband chip supplier Qualcomm was expected to release a newer generation LTE chipset that integrated support for LTE, EV-DO, and HSPA+ standards on a power-efficient 28nm process early this year. Unfortunately, sufficient volume of these chips weren't available when Apple began assembling the iPad 3 for launch in March. Apple had to release the "iPad Wi-Fi + 4G" with an older LTE chip design that was only compatible with LTE networks in the US and Canada.

The extra power drain wasn't much of a concern for the iPad 3, which already had a gargantuan battery to power its Retina display. But the limited compatibility with international LTE networks ended up triggering a couple million dollars in fines.

It seems likely that updating the LTE chip to the newer Qualcomm design (which is compatible with most LTE networks around the world) factored heavily into Apple's decision to release an updated iPad a head of its usual schedule. After all, over 60 percent of Apple's revenues now come from customers outside the US. It can't risk alienating users with "US-only" features when a technical solution is available.

Surface/Nexus 10 competition

Maybe Apple felt increased competition in the tablet market, in particular from Microsoft's Surface, Google's Nexus 7, and more recently, Google's Nexus 10. It seems plausible that the increased offerings could have worried Apple a bit. After all, if it stuck to its usual March/April launch cycle, it would be six months before Apple could wow potential buyers with something that might sway them away from the competition.

By releasing an updated iPad with the fast A6X processor, Apple has made more of a moving target for its competitors to deal with hitting.

We do think Apple definitely considered competitive strategy on its list, but we suspect this reasoning was more toward the bottom than the top.

iPad sales were slowing

iPad sales have historically (and no doubt, less than three full years of availability is a short history) risen throughout the year. They usually peak in Apple's fiscal first quarter, which happens to coincide with the holiday shopping season. Sales then drop in fiscal second quarter as potential iPad buyers await an announcement from Apple about the new version. However, Apple posted strong iPad sales after the initial launch of the iPad 3, which then dropped noticeably the following quarter (ending in September).

Even if Apple had been tracking the declining sales sooner and decided to react swiftly, that would only have given its engineers a couple months to get a new device out the door. A more plausible explanation is Apple was already working on a few of these elements for a revised iPad, and decided to release what was ready right now.

Still, despite the unexpected quarter-over-quarter drop, iPad sales were still up 26 percent year-over-year. Apple sold 14 million iPads altogether in fiscal fourth quarter. We suspect Apple wasn't as concerned about a potential blip in sales figures, though. Or at least, not worried enough to quickly develop a new model out of panic.

Holiday shopping timing

Perhaps the most interesting theory I heard was the impact of a fall iPad release on the holiday shopping season. As we noted above, iPad sales peaked at the end of the year when people bought them as gifts. The same has always been true for the iPod, and perhaps the iPhone, too.

As the theory goes, March was a bad time of year to release new iPad models. Someone's amazing new Christmas present would look old and busted just a few scant months after the holidays. But if Apple moved the iPad release cycle to fall, around the same time as new iPhones and iPods, it puts all of Apple's mobile devices "under the same seasonal umbrella." In other words, "it ensures that Apple has a host of new devices ready in time for the critical holiday demand," according to CNET's Lance Whitney.

We think there's really something to this thinking. Would you be more likely to buy someone an iPad as a gift you were reasonably certain it wouldn't be superseded by an updated model for at least six to seven months? My guess is that's true for many buyers. And with the iPad mini launching with a more gift-able size and price, a simultaneous iPad update ensures the full-size device won't get lost in a mini frenzy.

The obvious downside is Apple's revenues could become highly dependent on a single quarter of sales. Though we have a feeling Apple isn't all that concerned with when it makes a boatload of money. The company only cares that it is maximizing its potential to consistently make a boatload every year.

All of the above

Given all these sensible explanations for Apple's acceleration of iPad development, it seems perfectly conceivable that Tim Cook and his team relied on some combination of all of them. Maybe there are more we aren't even privy to.

Pick any one of the reasons individually, and none likely justify an accelerated development and release cycle. But even just two or three of the cited reasons together is enough, we think, for Apple to forge ahead with a revised iPad—even if it might have rubbed some iPad 3 buyers the wrong way.

Tell us why you think Apple jumped the gun in the comments below.

Promoted Comments

Another option might be that Apple doesn't want to be tied to a yearly release schedule for a device now featuring heavy, dedicated competition. As it stands now, the iPad 4 appears to be a few steps ahead of the competition performance-wise. But, Google isn't playing around, and with smaller market share, isn't afraid to abandon current customers by pumping out new models every week.

That could potentially lead to an iPad 4 with "lower" raw performance as soon as early next year. That's a long time to fight the perception of lower specs.

If, on the other hand, Apple moved to a twice-yearly update cycle with a faster processor or more RAM or something, they would never be out of it.

* * *

I say this as someone that thinks the iPad 3 is about perfect and doesn't buy into the whole specs argument ... but I still understand they're powerful. This could just be Apple's way of blunting that particular criticism.

106 Reader Comments

No real idea on this one. My money is on "streamline the brand" in order to move everyone to the lightning connector.

For the next article, how about, "Why wasn't Apple more specific about releasing sales data?" On 05NOV12, Apple published a press release stating it had sold 3 million iPads that weekend. They didn't say what type of iPads had sold. So which one didn't sell? Was it the Mini or the iPad 4? Maybe they both sold equally but it just looks more impressive if you add the numbers?

And with the iPad mini launching with a more gift-able size and price, a simultaneous iPad update ensures the full-size device won't get lost in a mini frenzy.

But you should probably have listed it as a leading reason in my opinion. That is, there needs to be more of a performance jump between the $329 mini and a $500 full-size iPad. That may have factored in more than comparisons to other branded tablets.

I think it's pretty obvious that there was more than just one reason to refresh the iPad 3 and that this was a good point in time to do it.

One thing I find much more strange: Why do they keep the iPad 2? I was fairly convinced that they would let go of it with the iPad Mini, which basically is an iPad 2 that is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and has a denser screen.

Another option might be that Apple doesn't want to be tied to a yearly release schedule for a device now featuring heavy, dedicated competition. As it stands now, the iPad 4 appears to be a few steps ahead of the competition performance-wise. But, Google isn't playing around, and with smaller market share, isn't afraid to abandon current customers by pumping out new models every week.

That could potentially lead to an iPad 4 with "lower" raw performance as soon as early next year. That's a long time to fight the perception of lower specs.

If, on the other hand, Apple moved to a twice-yearly update cycle with a faster processor or more RAM or something, they would never be out of it.

* * *

I say this as someone that thinks the iPad 3 is about perfect and doesn't buy into the whole specs argument ... but I still understand they're powerful. This could just be Apple's way of blunting that particular criticism.

I think it's pretty obvious that there was more than just one reason to refresh the iPad 3 and that this was a good point in time to do it.

One thing I find much more strange: Why do they keep the iPad 2? I was fairly convinced that they would let go of it with the iPad Mini, which basically is an iPad 2 that is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and has a denser screen.

And yet drop the 'new iPad'. Can only think that the cost margin in the iPad two was higher.

For the next article, how about, "Why wasn't Apple more specific about releasing sales data?" On 05NOV12, Apple published a press release stating it had sold 3 million iPads that weekend. They didn't say what type of iPads had sold. So which one didn't sell? Was it the Mini or the iPad 4? Maybe they both sold equally but it just looks more impressive if you add the numbers?

Data is control = power = money...

Let's take the Macs for example...For years Apple only released aggregate sales numbers for the simple reason that by showing which devices bring more cash / profits their competitors could have then focused on the ultra book segment without experiencing the cost and risk Apple took by being the first through the door.

The same goes for the iPods lines (what fraction of those revenues is due to iPod touch ?), iPhones etc.

I suspect that Apple saw that based on the items they could deliver, what we see in iPad 4 is the same as what we would see if they delivered in march instead. Anything more radical wouldn't be able to be delivered until this time 2013. So they decided to pull the trigger now, change the annual cycle and deliver a more polished device one year from now with much bigger changes.

My explanation for this phenomenon is simpler. It is not that difficult to make a new iteration of the product, and companies like Samsung and Apple have staffs of eager and talented engineers. Samsung and Nokia have always released dozens of new models each year because it's not that hard to do. You can make subtle improvements each month of solid work. Apple has to decide whether they will do things differently and stick to yearly cycles for single devices, or whether they should go for faster cycles and more widespread appeal.

I'd rather have a non-proprietary connector based on an open standard that I can use on ALL my devices, not just Apple ones.

That's mostly fair ... I've always found micro-USB to be difficult to seat well and kind of flimsy. I'm not shedding any tears not having to use it.

I do wonder if using a proprietary connector helps future upgrades, though. Micro-USB for USB3 is a totally different connector, right? It seems with Lightning, Apple could upgrade the transfer technology without affecting the device connector, potentially giving your cables a longer life span.

I would bet that its mostly like the LTE chip factor you mentioned - but there might be other components for which upgrading to is important. Does anyone track chip revs/generations on a component level?I doubt it's the performance improvement as a customer-oriented requirement that was the reason for the change. As a practical matter it was a double-edged sword with releasing such a fast chip but also alienating recent customers.

As the theory goes, March was a bad time of year to release new iPad models. Someone's amazing new Christmas present would look old and busted just a few scant months after the holidays. But if Apple moved the iPad release cycle to fall, around the same time as new iPhones and iPods, it puts all of Apple's mobile devices "under the same seasonal umbrella."

That's my bet too. Whenever someone is considering an iPad for Christmas they always hear "no, wait till March that's when the new one comes out!"

The A6X was ready to go, after years of development. They have plenty of experience with the new connector and LTE chipset from the iP5 and mini. The old LTE solution doesn't work worldwide, and the iPad mini has a better LTE solution. Why not release it now?

IIRC Tim Cook made a comment about them learning not to be afraid to cannibalize their own products, because if they don't do it someone else will.

That's a tough act to balance when your products are the "boutique" ones. You can't maintain margins if you price match the competition, and you can't slide in a mid-range without cannibalizing your high end. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Mini is probably priced too high to really staunch the growth of the $200-$250 range for Android, not that it's not still going to sell huge numbers.

I'd say it's even money that the Mini takes as many sales away from the full sized iPad as it does Android.

I suspect many of these reasons are at play for why Apple chose to upgrade early, but I think you're missing the bigger question. Should we be expecting another new iPad this spring with only minor spec bumps, or does Apple have an entirely new product up their sleeves? I'm banking on the second option. Maybe this March and April we can expect the long-rumored Apple TV or something else that's been kept top secret until now. If you ask me, that's the most intriguing reason for Apple to move up production. It's unlike them to setup their production schedules in a way that leaves half of the year relatively empty of Apple buzz.

I'm leaning on the "all of the above" theory. The lack in performance advancement from the 2 to 3 stung a bit, and also made the Ipad an easy target for emerging chips. Increased (or even better than expected) A6 production yields and discontinuing the A4 lines entirely means they had capacity to spare for an A6X, this may also be why they killed the A5X instead of keeping the 3 going in favor of the 2.

Moving to the lightning conenctor also solved (partially) an issue with charge time, as well as accessory compatibility. Having a mini and 10" model using different adapters for a year to go, well, lets face it, with everything buy the legact iPad using the 30-pin, accessory manufacture supporting it would get rare quick...

Finally, the holiday. NOONE expected the iPad to get an A6X. Android's entire model was designed to attack on 2 fronts: super cheap 7" and "more powerful than iPad" 10". They already had their gears in motion, so dropping a tablet pre-christmas thats as much as double the performance as even the android flagships running Arm15 cores, that was huge.

They can compete with the Mini only in the loss-leader markets apple could, and honestly even at $139 higher price, its very competitive to $200 tablets, and comes in 3G/4G options the competition doesn't. The 10" line howveer for the holiday now belongs to apple, unless someone is looking for a dockable tablet, or simply prefers android and would not be an apple customer anyway, but iPads will be a huge Christmas gift this year, and Apple just won the 10" market back with a surprise anouncement, very similar to how they won the market itself 3 years ago by launching at $499 instead of the assumed $999.

Would a six month dev cycle on generational updates really be all that bad? Sure, if you're the type of person that has to have the latest-and-greatest everything, it wouldn't be all that fun, as you're going to double the output that you're going to have to do every year. But with an iPad, are you seriously going to buy every generation? I don't see the point in spending $500-800 that often, especially if you're also upgrading your phone so quickly...

I suspect many of these reasons are at play for why Apple chose to upgrade early, but I think you're missing the bigger question. Should we be expecting another new iPad this spring with only minor spec bumps, or does Apple have an entirely new product up their sleeves? I'm banking on the second option. Maybe this March and April we can expect the long-rumored Apple TV or something else that's been kept top secret until now. If you ask me, that's the most intriguing reason for Apple to move up production. It's unlike them to setup their production schedules in a way that leaves half of the year relatively empty of Apple buzz.

That's a strong possibility. It also sets us up to getting back to a 9 month rotation on some hardware instead of anyally or longer. I think ATV in the early spring, new iPad and mini w/ retuina late spring, new intel chips on models this summer to go along with anouncing OS 10.9, new iPhone sooner than September (maybe summer), new iPods and notebooks in the fall and launch 10.9 and iOS 7.

One thing I find much more strange: Why do they keep the iPad 2? I was fairly convinced that they would let go of it with the iPad Mini, which basically is an iPad 2 that is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and has a denser screen.

And yet drop the 'new iPad'. Can only think that the cost margin in the iPad two was higher.

This seems like the most likely explanation, coupled with the fact that keeping the "old" new iPad would undoubtably cause confusion among the less-technically inclined buyers during the holiday rush. I see an iPad box on the shelf next to the Mini, so it must be the newest one, right?

I'd say it's even money that the Mini takes as many sales away from the full sized iPad as it does Android.

Yup, but that's the point. Many successful companies are afraid to do anything new if it might disturb their existing products, but in the long term that makes for a slow death. In the long run, it's better to increase mini sales at the cost of the regular iPad.

Personally, I believe that the reason for the mini and the 4 is quick cash before lawsuits about tax evasion start raining in from around the globe.

Dude, the "loophole" tax issues with Apple, Google, Amazon and others already rained in back in June. If any government cared to prosecute, they would have already and would have counted the gains this fiscal year to offset the lost revenue from the failing economies worldwide making their bottom lines look better and keep taxes lower for next year. The fact they have not moved basicaly confirms that though there's a PUBLIC outcry, and people feel cheated, what they're doing is point in fact LEGAL, and the're not even remotely alone in doing it.

I'd rather have a non-proprietary connector based on an open standard that I can use on ALL my devices, not just Apple ones.

That's mostly fair ... I've always found micro-USB to be difficult to seat well and kind of flimsy. I'm not shedding any tears not having to use it.

I do wonder if using a proprietary connector helps future upgrades, though. Micro-USB for USB3 is a totally different connector, right? It seems with Lightning, Apple could upgrade the transfer technology without affecting the device connector, potentially giving your cables a longer life span.

It's totally about bumping the Christmas season sales. Tim has had some rough spots and he needs some solid financial quarters to stop the investors from buying the 'Apple's heading down the toilet' line while he tweaks the company.

My question is will there be a spring refresh? The Mini needs a retina display to compete, but what can they do with the iPad? Redo the case?

I'm more interested in what this means for the timing of the iPad 5. Will they go back to releasing a new iPad once a year, and thus the iPad 5 will come Nov. 2013? Or is there still an iPad refresh coming in March?

I'd say it's even money that the Mini takes as many sales away from the full sized iPad as it does Android.

Yup, but that's the point. Many successful companies are afraid to do anything new if it might disturb their existing products, but in the long term that makes for a slow death. In the long run, it's better to increase mini sales at the cost of the regular iPad.

Definitely - it's not a bad business move at all, just not an historically Apple move